From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98227139694 for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 19:56:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8417BE0CB0; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 19:56:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (mail.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54BDEE077D for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 19:56:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from katipo2.lan (unknown [203.86.205.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: kentnl) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D3F013418AF for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 19:56:48 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 07:56:22 +1200 From: Kent Fredric To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] The problem of defunct and undermanned projects in Gentoo Message-ID: <20170719075622.293bff90@katipo2.lan> In-Reply-To: <1500239562.11529.1.camel@gentoo.org> References: <1500239562.11529.1.camel@gentoo.org> Organization: Gentoo X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.15.0-dirty (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; boundary="Sig_/rMwjxicS8Yp0o/vKVXuefmi"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: ccd6d425-1231-4006-9e23-6bdfdf13cde2 X-Archives-Hash: 25f5d01d67519ebcebc6af30495f8824 --Sig_/rMwjxicS8Yp0o/vKVXuefmi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 23:12:42 +0200 Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: > What do you think? Would you mind getting that amount of mail once? > Any other ideas? =46rom the mail I got, ( which I didn't mind ), I felt there was one distinguisher that was missing: "active" vs "passive" membership. Like, I get the impression ( with perl for instance ) that although many of its members are "around", and they occasionally "do something", I'm not sure they can all count as "There" in terms of staff-power metrics. If you make one commit every 6 months, are you really still "active"? Its useful to keep them all on the list, because they're people who have knowledge and can do the work if it comes there way, so I don't think *removing* them is the right thing to do. But for keeping tabs on "do we need more staff or not", it just serves as a confusing source of data. --Sig_/rMwjxicS8Yp0o/vKVXuefmi Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEPZazbI/qrFT1o9rn6FQySxNmqCAFAlluZ/QACgkQ6FQySxNm qCBR7g//eMo7I6DprjBKBcoPUCzN+GBMcW+BwF2BsII0HRfYC+luheAaTLYci7gb fi5tmxax/ubqArUiiqyurwYlsn5Z/0m/oWu6gR28NyJecZOXg/gI0dU0iEu/yxhq SBHFZs7ksF5QMwjN0cRwUjsvulJsl5U90/x/OYjty9ohnB1Jp/DAlDKSTSthV1i0 4BvZpt4Z+DFgxkunUFB8grBDPbEAz4ctlJ8QK2P64CQEr0JUz/IRhqer8tHsug2V 3d3pXB4Ce2XRehlOmtip6rS66t76BRYxFhB1OucFN1TPh2+9utXf3ol180FW6w9l 2zVJFdOeNXdqMnV2sig48xe5hG6A5Z8fbAdKY+BRB0NPVSC00yDUlVRwJ2rLnkLm 9hIbP9/Fxl13ENXAbxijQN/5VXr4kbpwUcH5dTQkWb/ylaLUucy+DJ0QV/yRhFc1 G4fFODoxc8PJlRXsgN4DSMStih8hQBqz6A9H3NHnmJUAcwnSOicwqzKLz4D3cqYv wZF5fOWrMYJEQpsVpXzFjywQXLJYB0HB/cJMJqAufnCqWbpq6Q/sWBwa69k3hj6I OWTGoXss0aaw4oP4Edn4QgUHdy+kzfp+rkgdLjcOPkLg585lcOQ2MW7JzR/wx0jq nhiyL2Q8Hgz4K61toER62QY+vBOwoqc5eoOnGF/B+J90+7mKi8Y= =hHuJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/rMwjxicS8Yp0o/vKVXuefmi--